- This topic has 4,343 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 28 2009,22:30) Nick,
It's time for you to answer questions. In Acts 13 Paul told the Jewish leaders “we turn to the nations”. If the word “nations” here means “Gentiles”, then why did Paul go only into the Jewish synagogues? Explain why Paul never went to a Gentile after saying “we turn to the nations”?I have grown weary of answering your questions without your returning the courtesy of answering mine.
thinker
Hi TT,
The plan of God was never to go to the GENTILES INSTEAD OF THE CHOSEN PEOPLE.It was to offer them salvation AS WELL.
They are always offered the first right of refusal.
Seeking………But you must also remember Paul had not yet been lead into Arabia for years of revelations and teachings and learned much more then He realizes at first.It was after three years He returned. Gal 2:1……Say 14 year later Paul went up to again to Jerusalem ,to confer with the Apostles.
Gal2:6……> But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepteth (NO) (Man's PERSON:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. 7….> But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircimcision was committed unto Me , as the gospel of the circunmcision was unto Peter: This seems to imply two different Gospels , One for the Gentiles and one for the Israelites. However i do believe it all about one salvation.
2Co 12:7….> And lest I should be exalted above measure through the aboundance of the (REVELATIONS), there was given Me,. This shows Paul did seem to have a great deal of revelations given him. There seem to be a difference in the Gospels of Paul and Peter's Gospels. Paul I believe was given spicall understanding with reguards to salvation IMO.
love and peace to you and yours……………..gene
G,
There is one gospel and new gospels are ananthema.[gal1]Peter and Paul are one in Christ and they spoke as the Spirit they shared gave utterance.
There is no division in the body of Christ.
Nick……….I am not saying there is a different salvation Gospel , Jesus Died for us all both Gentiles or Israelite. But to say Paul teachings were the exact same as Peter and the Apostles is not true< Paul was give More of a Spiritual revelation then the other Apostles were , Because he taught against some of their teaching (Circumcision, clean and unclean meats, Sabbaths, and Holy Day observances and etc. Yes and even Baptisms of the flesh, He moved much to a higher level of the Spirit. Please don't think that i am saying that the basic teachings of Salvation are different, Its just the Physical things that were tied to salvation were moved to a hight lever of the spirit. IMO
love and peace to you and yours……………………………gene
G,
There is no division in the Christ nor between those who are made one in that Spirit of Christ.1 Corinthians 9:22
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.Quote (Gene @ Mar. 01 2009,05:15) Nick……….I am not saying there is a different salvation Gospel , Jesus Died for us all both Gentiles or Israelite. But to say Paul teachings were the exact same as Peter and the Apostles is not true< Paul was give More of a Spiritual revelation then the other Apostles were , Because he taught against some of their teaching (Circumcision, clean and unclean meats, Sabbaths, and Holy Day observances and etc. Yes and even Baptisms of the flesh, He moved much to a higher level of the Spirit. Please don't think that i am saying that the basic teachings of Salvation are different, Its just the Physical things that were tied to salvation were moved to a hight lever of the spirit. IMO love and peace to you and yours……………………………gene
Exactly ! Paul's gospel was according to the higher level of the spirit. Paul said that any other gospel than the one HE preached was “anathema”. Nick just doesn't like the idea that obedience is altogether according to the spirit level now. Nick likes the things that are fleshly, the things for which he can take some credit.
thinker
Hi tt,
Your condemnations of others do you no favours.Paul TAUGHT those who had had the one gospel preached to them and had been reborn from above.
First sowing then watering.[1Cor3]
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 01 2009,05:50) Hi tt,
Your condemnations of others do you no favours.Paul TAUGHT those who had had the one gospel preached to them and had been reborn from above.
First sowing then watering.[1Cor3]
You do yourself no favors by avoiding a simple question put to you. If the word “ethnos” should be translated “Gentiles” as our translations say, then why did Paul after saying “we turn to the nations” go only to the Jewish synagogues? Paul went only to the Jewish synagogues after making that statement. WHY?thinker
Hi TT,
God opened the door to those who had no hope.
But the door for all men, Jew or greek, never closed.Nick………..Brother we must move all things to a Spirit Level, The Spirit is not Physical, all things Physical are for a Spiritual lesson in Scripture , we Through the Spirit are being change from a Physical realm to a Spiritual one. Try to move all to that level brother. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………….gene
G,
Every man seems to have his opinion as to what the Spirit tells him and so spawn denominations.
But the Spirit is not divided.Those who prefer their own words or the words of men show another spirit.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 01 2009,06:09) Hi TT,
God opened the door to those who had no hope.
But the door for all men, Jew or greek, never closed.
Paul said “to the Jew FIRST“. Gentiles could not be saved until all the remnant of Israel of that generation came in to salvation first. Israel was God's “firstborn” (Ex. 4:22) and therefore had the priority. Israel was the “firstfruits” of God's creatures (James 1:18).You still have not answered my question. You still have not explained why Paul went only into the Jewish synagogues after saying “we turn to the nations.”
Acts offers no support whatsoever that Gentiles were commanded to be baptized.
thinker
thethinker,Feb. wrote:[/quote]
Thinker states –Quote Seeking,
The Greek word in Acts 14:1 is “hellenist.” A hellenist may be a Greek speaking JEWNote, MAY be – not IS. So what IS a hellenist?
a Hellen (Grecian) or inhabitant of Hellas; by extension a Greek speaking person, especially a non-Jew: – Gentile, Greek.
StrongThayer Definition:
1) a Greek either by nationality, whether a native of the main land or of the Greek islands or colonies2) in a wider sense the name embraces all nations not Jews that made the language, customs, and learning of the Greeks their own; the primary reference is to a difference of religion and worship
So now I know what a hellenist is and repeat –
my version of Acts 14:1 reads differently than yours Act 14:1 Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. So some Greeks (Gentiles) must have snuck in. A hellenist, according to the above definitions comprises several things –
1) especially a non-Jew: – Gentile, Greek.
2)all nations not Jews that made the language, customs, and learning of the Greeks their own; the primary reference is to a difference of religion and worship
Non- Jews of a different religion and worship, thus, NOT PROSELYTES to Judiasm. And Acts 14:1 states they WERE IN THE SYNAGOGUE.Thinker quotes Nelson's Bible Dictionary, “SYNAGOGUE –
A congregation of Jews for worship or religious study….
Eventually the term came to refer exclusively to JEWSAn historian who tells us what happened eventually is not making a statement regarding what was happeniing at the time of the text being considered.
Consider this statement by Thinker –
Quote Every single place Paul went after saying “we turn to the nations” was the Jewish synagogues. Thus, he failed to carry out his mandate from Jesus to go to the Gentiles.
He preached his “Faith Alone” gospel to only Jews, in Synagogues. (Remember – no non – Jews Allowed)
The Phillipian jailer, a Gentile, who Paul baptized was in a Synagogue – not at home and not at the jail. He also must have been a Jew. Hm!
This gets more and more complex and confusing unless I take the Bible for what it says and is most commonly understood to say.But, no wonder, for it is not God that authors confusion.
Seeking
Quote (Gene @ Feb. 28 2009,10:42) Paul I believe was given spicall understanding with reguards to salvation IMO.
Gal. 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast.Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Act 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
Rom 1:5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Gene, I won't labor you with text after text. Suffice it to say that all encluding Paul knew about a grace salvation long before it was shared with the Galatians. IMO the only “special understanding” Paul was given was that he was the Apostle to the Gentiles. He was not the only one told about Gentile enclusion as that revelation was made to Peter also.
Blessings to you,
Seeking
Seeking……….Show were the other Apostles had Paul's understanding about the law, that Paul did, and where others apostles had the level of revelations as Paul, even Peter acknowledged that fact, Some of the unlearned twist Paul's word because of the hard to understand teachings of Paul. The apostles Know full well Paul had special revealed understanding. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene
Seeking said:
Quote Note, MAY be – not IS. So what IS a hellenist? a Hellen (Grecian) or inhabitant of Hellas; by extension a Greek speaking person, especially a non-Jew: – Gentile, Greek.
StrongThayer Definition:
1) a Greek either by nationality, whether a native of the main land or of the Greek islands or colonies2) in a wider sense the name embraces all nations not Jews that made the language, customs, and learning of the Greeks their own; the primary reference is to a difference of religion and worship
Seeking,
I said “may be” to show myself cordial. So I will re-state it the way it actually was historically. A “hellenist” in the book of Acts was a Greek speaking Jew. The Unger's Bible Dictionary says,Quote Hellenist: a term employed of a person who spoke Greek but was not racially of the Greek nation. The expression is especially used of JEWS who adopted the Greek language and to some extent, Greek customs and culture, (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 467, Moody Press). Seeking,
Did you note that Unger's says that the expression “hellenist” was one who spoke the Greek language but was not a Greek racially? Did you notice that it says that the expression was used “especially of Jews who adopted the Greek language and culture”? Your own source says that there was more than one sense to the term. But in the more restricted sense the term “hellenist” applied to Jews. An example from Acts,Quote Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution (6:1) I offer you the note in my study Bible
Quote …the Grecian Jews were considered outsiders by the native born Jews and so were not getting their share of the food distribution…. (Reformation Study Bible note on Acts 6:1, p. 1721) .
The “hellenists” in Acts 6:1 were Jews that were outsiders.
After Paul denounced the leaders of the Jews he said, “we turn to the nations”. After saying this he went only into the synagogues of the Jews where both native born Jews and Hellenist Jews gathered to hear the law of Moses being taught. Gentiles were not permitted to enter into the synagogue. Therefore, the word “nations” referred to the nations of the Jews and the distinction between Jew and Greek was one of CLASS and not of race.
Then there is the problem that Paul said that the gospel was to be preached to the Jew FIRST.
When it comes right down to it you have no evidence that Gentiles were commanded to be baptized. In fact, the evidence testifies to the opposite because Gentiles were being justified according to their obedience to the law of nature (Rom. 2). The law of nature did not say “be baptized.” Paul said, “WHEN they do by nature those things that are in the law….” (Rom. 2:12-15). Paul acknowledged that non-Jews who obeyed the law of nature were justified on that basis apart from any verbal command to “be baptized.”
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 28 2009,17:39)
Seeking,
I said “may be” to show myself cordial. So I will re-state it the way it actually was historically. A “hellenist” in the book of Acts was a Greek speaking Jew. The Unger's Bible Dictionary says,Hellenist a term employed of a person who spoke Greek but was not racially of the Greek nation. The expression is especially used of JEWS who adopted the Greek language and to some extent, Greek customs and culture, Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 467, Moody Press).
So then, we must accept your authorities as the end of the matter. We must disregard the definitions given by Thayer and Strong as illegitimate and inaccurate I suppose.
Quote Posted: Feb. 28 2009,15:16 ——————————————————————————–
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 28 2009,10:14)
Thinker states – Quote
Seeking,
The Greek word in Acts 14:1 is “hellenist.” A hellenist may be a Greek speaking JEWNote, MAY be – not IS. So what IS a hellenist?
a Hellen (Grecian) or inhabitant of Hellas; by extension a Greek speaking person, especially a non-Jew: – Gentile, Greek.
StrongThayer Definition:
1) a Greek either by nationality, whether a native of the main land or of the Greek islands or colonies2) in a wider sense the name embraces all nations not Jews that made the language, customs, and learning of the Greeks their own; the primary reference is to a difference of religion and worship
Quote When it comes right down to it you have no evidence that Gentiles were commanded to be baptized. Please be clear that you and others have taken on the task
regarding these matters. I am only wondering at the points you make to support your contentions.Here is one example –
Quote After Paul denounced the leaders of the Jews he said, “we turn to the nations”. After saying this he went only into the synagogues of the Jews where both native born Jews and Hellenist Jews gathered to hear the law of Moses being taught. To which I ask, if it is accurate and stated –
Thus, he failed to carry out his mandate from Jesus to go to the Gentiles.
He preached his “Faith Alone” gospel to only Jews, in Synagogues. (Remember – no non – Jews Allowed)
The Phillipian jailer, a Gentile, who Paul baptized was in a Synagogue – not at home and not at the jail. He also must have been a Jew. Hm!
This gets more and more complex and confusing unless I take the Bible for what it says and is most commonly understood to say.But, no wonder, for it is not God that authors confusion.
Quote Gentiles were not permitted to enter into the synagogue. Therefore, the word “nations” referred to the nations of the Jews and the distinction between Jew and Greek was one of CLASS and not of race. Here again, only if one accepts your definitions and conclusions.
Quote Rom. 2:12-15). Paul acknowledged that non-Jews who obeyed the law of nature were justified on that basis apart from any verbal command to “be baptized.” We covered this and the context and text of Romans three
does not support your statement at all. As I said prior, Paul was not discussing what saved but rather what condemned.
His conclusion, regardless of nature law or tablets of stone
was plain, But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.The bottom line on these discussion is this – You will not prove, to the point of acceptance, your stand regarding no baptism for Gentiles. Others will not prove their point regarding the necessity of baptism as a command requirement to you.
I view Baptism as a faith response expressing a public acknowlegement that can add to the experience of many when and if spiritually and not legalistically applied. To many who legalistically apply it give no evidence of the fruit of the Spirit the calim to have inherited nor do they resemble a walk in newness of life.
I impose baptismon no one and fault no one for desiring to make it a part of their walk.
Seeking
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 28 2009,15:12) Gentiles could not be saved until all the remnant of Israel of that generation came in to salvation first.
So then justification did not equal salvation?You said Paul said they were justified by keeping the law
shown in nature.Why bother them with anything else if that was provong sufficient for them?
Quote (Gene @ Feb. 28 2009,16:18) Seeking……….Show were the other Apostles had Paul's understanding about the law, that Paul did, and where others apostles had the level of revelations as Paul, even Peter acknowledged that fact, Some of the unlearned twist Paul's word because of the hard to understand teachings of Paul. The apostles Know full well Paul had special revealed understanding. IMO peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene
Gene,They all knew that the sacrificial system of the OT was not sufficient. That is why they preached the message of Grace and trust in Jesus for salvation.
Gal. 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast.
Joh 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
I have not yet had proven to me the “two gospel” theory – one for Jews and one for Gentiles.
Quote The apostles Know full well Paul had special revealed understanding. IMO I am glad you added IMO. My request to you would be as yours to me. Show me where any Apostle expressed this.
Blessings,
Seeking
Seeking ……….I have shown where Paul had special revelations from God in fact to the point that God had to given Him a pain in the side to keep him humble as He said. Even Peter acknowledged Paul's special revelations , saying that the unstable would twist what he said to there own destruction. Peter was fully aware of Paul's Special understandings. Peter was still keeping the clean and unclean laws even after he was converted, as he showed in the case of Cornelius, No one expounded the Separation of the Law verses Spirit as Paul did. and to not understand that is simply denying the truth, as recorded in scripture. All understanding was not all at once given to the Apsotels, but was over a process of time reavealed to different ones as in the case of Paul. He is the One God Used to bring about a true picture of Salvation and how is workd in the Hearts and minds of those God is saving. “for God will judge the intent of man hearts , by (MY) Gospel . Notice He says by (MY) Gospel. Paul moved salvation to a true Spiritual level. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………………………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
